Newsman Tom Brokaw came under fire earlier this week for neglecting to mention gay folk in his new book, Boom! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Reflections on the ’60s and Today. Upon hearing the news, legendary gay activist Frank Kameny wrote Brokaw and his publishers a scathing letter which reads, in part:
The whole thing is deeply insulting. As I said, you have de-gayed an entire generation. For shame, for shame, for shame. You owe an abject public apology to the entire gay community. I demand it; we expect it.
Brokaw offers no apologies in this CNN interview. Rather, the venerable journalist dismisses Kameny’s criticism, saying, “it was not an oversight on my part to try to downplay the rise of the gay rights movement, which did come later.” He’s also sure to remind readers that he took “friend” Larry Kramer‘s advice and aired the first television documentary on AIDS. That’s something, right?
Read the transcript after the jump…
KURTZ: I have heard some criticism of the book saying that you deal with civil rights, you deal with women’s liberation, as it was called then, but you don’t devote any time or space to the burgeoning gay rights movement. Is that something…
(CROSSTALK)
BROKAW: I don’t, because the gay rights movement came slightly later. It lifted off during that time and I had to make some choices about what I was going to concentrate on. The big issues were the anti-war movement, the counterculture.
I do make some reference to it, but it is only fleeting. And it wasn’t any attempt on my part to suppress it. It is just that the gay rights movement really came later after the ‘60s, it really began to take hold in the ‘70s.
I did the first television documentary on AIDS in America, and it was because my friend Larry Kramer had stopped me on the street and said, there is something going on in the gay community that you need to pay attention to. So in this book it was not an oversight on my part to try to downplay the rise of the gay rights movement, which did come later.
WWH
“…Personal Reflections on the 60’s…” He’s a straight guy. I doubt his personal reflections on the 60’s include Stonewall. He probably wasn’t even well established in the news biz back then (or maybe not even in NYC). Give the man a break. If we complain at every little thing we risk becoming the Boy(s) who cried wolf and when it’s really important our cries will fall upon deaf ears. Jeeze.
hells kitchen guy
He’s got a point. Mattachine & Daughters of Bilitis membership numbered in the dozens. Advocate was founded in 67 but it was a mimeo sheet. There were “disturbances” over bar closings in LA & SF. But really, the whole ball only got rolling after june 1969 – which is technically the end of the ’60s (which ended at Altamont & w/Charlie Manson, right?).
Parker
I think we can all agree that Stonewall, in ’69, was THE big event, but as Kameny’s letter points out, there was a whole decade of activity. Ignoring it would be like writing about the 1950s and taking the stance that there was no need to mention the black community because the civil rights movement didn’t “happen” until the 60s.
Jim Provenzano
We’ve been written out of nearly every other history book, except those we’ve written on our own.
Giving a talking head newscaster like Brokaw the authoritative POV on an entire decade is inane. He didn’t include gays because he doesn’t think about them. His parsing out an excuse, as if gays weren’t newsworthy until we started dying, is preposterous, but entirely in line with his sort of minimizing, distant news reporting.
hisurfer
“We” don’t expect an apology. This part of the we, in fact, couldn’t give a fuck at hearing yet another boomer wax nostalgic about those ten years.
Davyd
I agree totally with poster number 1…
Let’s stop complaining about every little thing…so a straight guy left us out of his book…is that anything new? I don’t think so. Let’s concentrate on the important things like equal partner benefits for insurance, medical decisions, inheritance, etc. etc…..and leave the whining to go with the cheese.
Leland Frances
And even lamer, more insulting response than I expected from this Super White Guy, y which I mean not just Caucasian, but male, heterosexual, and privileged to whom we REMAIN almost always invisible and always irrelevant. Gays = AIDS???? Thank you, Tom, and fuck you, and not in the good way!
At first glance, someone so “white†could be forgiven for not being aware of gay activism in the U.S. that goes back to the ‘50s. Many, possibly even most, modern gays are unaware of it, too. However, the limited attention to Stonewall in 1969, and the fact that it didn’t begin to permeate public consciousness beyond NY until the next year, is, again, irrelevant because, as an earlier NY Times article featured on Queerty indicated, despite his effectively DISHONEST disclaimer above, Brokaw “loosely defines the ‘60s as the period from 1963 TO 1974.†That would include not just the period involving Stonewall but four years of growing pride events across the country celebrating its anniversary, and the development of gay groups on countless college campuses as Kameny noted. His ignoring that [versus being ignorant of it], and their continued, even larger and broader existence today is irresponsible, and, YES, homophobic.
Brokaw could have demonstrated the type of nexus of events that historians wet themselves for by making note of the fact that the organizer of the still famous 1963 March on Washington for Black civil rights [which is one of the main subjects of his selective book] was organized by an out gay Black man, Bayard Rustin. As Kameny noted, the White House was first picketed by gays in 1965. Demonstrations in the ‘60s against antigay military policies [which he could have linked to the number of medal-winning gay vets who have since come out and bills in Congress today to admit gays to the military] predate that as does the first statewide decriminalization of sodomy in Illinois—a MAJOR change in American culture and jurisprudence that he could have linked to the Supreme Court decision “legalizing†sodomy nationwide in 2003. [Kameny could have also mentioned that, in 1971, he was the first out gay to run for Congress, and was a major player in that first great national triumph [with international influence] that occurred in 1973 when the American Psychiatric Association ruled that gays are not inherently mentally ill. A decision that got HUGE mainstream media coverage and, again, occurred within the functional timeframe of Brokaw’s book. It was, in its own way, as significant as the Constitutional amendment permitting Black males to vote.
And 1974 was a watershed year for us as Kathy Kozachenko and Elaine Noble, became the first out gays elected to public office, and already elected Allan Spear came out. {Kameny mildly errs re Noble/’72.] Along with Jose Sarria’s [1961] and Kameny’s attempts, Brokaw could have linked that to the number of out gay office holders today but commented on the significance that there are only TWO out members of the US Congress four decades later.
Employing the “where are they now?†angle as he does so much throughout his book, he could have included David Mixner who, while closeted then, played a key role in the challenge of Eugene McCarthy to LBJ and was one of the organizers of the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam in 1969 that had tens of thousands descending upon Washington and millions of participants across the country and Europe. That was when Mixner became friends with student Bill Clinton, who organized a parallel demonstration at Oxford [used against him by Bush pere when they ran against each other]. Years later after coming out, Mixner was instrumental in many gay rights campaigns, including helping engineer Ronald Reagan coming out against Prop 6 which would have banned gays from teaching in California, and, more famously, helped elect Clinton [and then fell out with him over DADTDP].
And, as mentioned, there was the huge role lesbians played in the women’s movement which Brokaw give ample discussion while degaying it. There was also a scandalous effort to drive them out led by feminist matriarch Betty Friedan. But, hey, just because gays were major players in that and the other two main subjects of Brokaw’s solipsistic book, as well as being one of the two issues that gave rise to the extremely powerful and rich “Religious Right,†why should he “see†us any more now than he did forty years ago? I guess being 50% of something isn’t mathmatically significant in Brokaw’s white world.
Being gay is not a choice but ignoring us is, just as not “hearing†the many LGBT voices and issues that have boomed across those decades. For all his celebrity news reader/author status [â€white†men idolizing other “white†men], we highly doubt that these or any of Brokaw’s memorabilia will ever take the same hallowed place next to Thomas Jefferson’s desk and other “American Treasures†as Kameny’s has.
FOR YOU PANSY POLLYANNAS, PAY ATTENTION: Brokaw was a reporter for NBC out of Los Angeles, not Bumfuck, South Dakota, in 1966. Not only would that have put him in a newsroom that would have received wire service reports about Stonewall three years later, but gay activism was ALREADY an issue IN Los Angeles by that time. Just ONE example: a local demonstration against the military ban on gays IN 1966, the same year Brokaw started at KNBC:
“As [Harry] Hay and his staff carried on their interviews with NEWS REPORTERS, the Los Angeles Police Department, realizing that the event was actually going to take place, and already beset by Watts uprisings, could only foresee further difficulty in a homosexual motorcade through the streets of the city. ‘If you want to go into military service, why don’t you just sign up?’ Sgt. Wesley Sherman of Police Department Special Events asked Don Slater. ‘Why create an incident?’ But a desire to go into the service was not the question. Don Slater and most other Committee members had already served and had been honorably discharged. ‘Who wants to be drafted?†Slater asked NEWSWEEK reporter Phil Hagen. ‘Surely not the homosexual. But the government’s categoric rejection of all persons it knows to be homosexual is un-American and based on ignorance and superstition. Homosexuals are asking for equal rights and benefits from their country. At the same time they recognize their equal duties and responsibilities.’…By Friday night everyone was a little on edge. ‘TIME’ photographers were all over the place. …[While, ultimately, only the ‘Free Press’, covered it among local papers] Committee members did see themselves on CBS News at 6:00 and 11:00 that night.†Emphasis mine.
-http://www.tangentgroup.org/history/articles/motorcade.html
If other local reporters were aware of it, and KNBC’s competitor covered it, and even international magazines “Newsweek†and “Time,†why are such things so absent from Brokaw’s chronicle, again, when it would be so appealing for an objective historian to write something like, 41 years later, and 22 years after Air Force T. Sgt. Leonard Matlovich appeared on the cover of “Time,†gay men and women are still fighting to serve their country openly.†Why? BECAUSE HE’S A FUCKING, ARROGANT BIGOT.
Further, it’s not just his memories but he SELECTIVELY interviewed countless others for the book, hence the title “VoiceS of the Sixties.â€
Per the NY Times article Queerty originally linked to, which also noted Brokaw’s ignoring the gay civil rights movement:
“Tom Brokaw’s ‘Boom!’ orchestrates a baby-boom epiphany. It stages a virtual reunion of America’s Class of 1968, accompanied by a full spectrum of opinions about the impact of that pivotal year. Although he describes his role in this process as that of moderator and class president, there’s more to it than that. Mr. Brokaw serves as a latter-day Rip Van Winkle, awakening to marvel at FOUR DECADES’ WORTH OF CHANGES in the book’s DOZENS of interviewees.†Emphasis mine.
From Amazon’s description: “The voices and stories of both famous people and ordinary citizens come together as Brokaw takes us on a memorable journey through a remarkable time, exploring how individual lives and the national mindset were affected by a controversial era and showing how the aftershocks of the Sixties continue to resound in our lives today. In the reflections of a generation, Brokaw also discovers lessons that might guide us in the years ahead. …Race, war, politics, feminism, popular culture, and music are all explored here, and we learn from a wide range of people about their lives.†EXCEPT FOR THE GAYS! Brokaw couldn’t think of ONE gay man or woman to include? Were we all living in some other country but suddenly shipped en masse to the USA in 1975?
Brokaw is a bigot who cherry-picked people and quotes that would reinforce his own very narrow, very “white†view of the world. Gays and lesbian lives, MILLIONS of people who were not only pursuing their personal freedom but were directly involved in EVERY OTHER movement that he covers in detail are IRRELEVANT in his eyes.
For shame!
Leland Frances
Ponder that Moses did not know how to tell the Israelites who had given him the Ten Commandments. “And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.â€(Exodus 3:13-14). This is curious. Why not tell the Israelites Yahweh (Jehovah) had sent him? All of the Israelites knew that name. Moses was experiencing God in a way he knew they would not easily understand. He was experiencing God as the one Self of all beings; as pure awareness, the basis of all existence, the ground of all being – the I AM. The I AM is within us all. The I AM that is in you is the same I AM that is in me and everyone else. At the center of our being we are all connected. This is why Jesus tells us the kingdom of God is within us: “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.†(Luke 17:20-21). Some have attempted to dilute this scripture by saying that Jesus meant he himself was among them. However, this is easily dismissed because he also says the kingdom of God does not come with observation and Jesus was certainly observable. Also, the Master says the kingdom is not “here†or “there†and Jesus could be regarded as being either here or there. The I AM is not observable because it is not a “thing†rather it is pure awareness. It is not “here†or “there†because it is all-pervading and that includes “within us.†The concept of looking within to find God also tallies with Buddhist and Hindu scriptures. If the Old Testament says God is I AM, what does the New Testament say? “God is love.†(1 John 4:8, 4:16 ). Like the I AM, love also comes from within us. Love is another name for I AM. We can only experience love for God or our neighbor as something that comes from within us. Thus, the kingdom of God is within us. And what are Jesus’ two commandments? “One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?†Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â€To think that salvation can be had by simply mouthing the words, “I believe in Jesus†is nothing but pure laziness. First of all, Jesus said that we must regain our childlike innocence or we are absolutely not going to heaven: “And he said: ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’†(Matthew 18:3). How about these: “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?†(Luke 6:46). And: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’†(Matthew 7:21-23). If Jesus’ crucifixion atoned for our sins for all time then why did he give us so much instruction? Why did he give us his two commandments? Salvation means roll up our shirtsleeves and get to work. God will not hand out His grace if we make no effort to become innocent of mind and loving at heart.The mantra of the ego is, “Its all about me.†The footprint of the ego is “My way is the only way.†The ego, by nature, will adopt any belief as an identity. Then it is fearful when faced with other beliefs. It feels threatened. There is no love in the ego and the path to God is love – not a belief. The ego must always imagine that it is the center of the universe. Thus, “My way is the only way†comes into being and, by extension, everything with which the ego is associated. An ego-centered Christian says “Jesus is the only way†and an ego-centered Muslim says, “Islam is the only way.†The translation of both statements is, “My way or the highway.†The ego is the opposite of love. The ego is me… me… me… and love is you… you… you… The ego is motivated by, “What’s in it for me?†Love asks, “How may I serve you?†The ego is Satan in us. Love is God in us. The ego is the sense of separation from God and others. Love is a feeling of unity with God and others. The ego is “I†and “mine.†Love does not seek to possess but only to give. Where there is ego there can be no love and where there is selfless love, there can be no ego. Think of any negative emotion – jealousy, hatred, greed, anger – all of them are the fruit of the ego whose roots are “I†and “mine.†Therefore, love is the most potent destroyer of the ego. Jesus says loving our neighbor and loving God are the keys to salvation. Innocence is the fertile soil in which love takes root. That brings us to these questions: “Do I love God with all my heart and mind? Do I love my neighbor as my own self?†– as Jesus commanded? If the answer is no, then we are not going to heaven. If no, then we must begin the quest for this love to which Jesus directs us. Yet we will attend church for years of Sundays and not hear one sermon about love much less any advice as to how to practice this kind of love. Christian books and tapes are more numerous than the stars in the sky but few are concerned with love and how to attain it. This is astonishing because this is the central teaching of Jesus! Love is the very path to salvation! Sadly, we don’t recognize love or the need for it because we ourselves have no love. We have long since forgotten what pure selfless love is or what it feels like it is IRRELEVANT in his eyes.
jack
Tom Brokaw comes across as a typical liberal who de-gays the past.
jack
I would say that gay liberation was one of the pivotal movements that came out of the 1960’s. To pretend it wasn’t there is a disgrace.
Jon
Damn Leland! Rant much? Brokaw wrote his book the way he wanted to. If you want to write anyone wants to write a book about gay 60’s please feel free to do so.
Bob R
Leland:
Be still and know that I am God!
Dawster
AGAIN… WE GOT IT, Leland…
People DO NOT have a right to write their personal view of American History.
WE GOT IT.
once again, the George W. Bush “with us or against us” / “all or nothing” mentality rears it’s coked up head…
WE GOT IT.
Charley
NO NEWS ABOUT GAY RIGHTS IN THE 60’s. HELLO
The New York Times, due to Blumenthal. Crash silence.
Charley
Sorry, I meant Rosenthal. Get the homophobic Jews in publishing mixed up.
hells kitchen guy
Jon: You’re right. It’s his fucking book. If Kameny doesn’t like it, let him rigth his own goddamn book. Or give this one a bad review somewhere. But to “protest” a book written by a private citizen … seems weird and smells like censorship.
alan brickman
tom brokaw still doesn’t like gays…big surprise
Dennis Savage
“smells like censorship” — no more than Brokaw, guy. Does an anti-war protest censor Bushass?
Brokaw’s a nitwit. That’s why I stopped watching NBC news when the wad took over.
And who stole Frances’ screen name for that second comment?